science communicationhttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/5570/all
enGot Framing? Why Scientists Must Pay Attention to Communication Science, and Not Just as an Afterthoughthttp://www.desmogblog.com/got-framing-why-scientists-must-pay-attention-communication-science-and-not-just-afterthought
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/dont_tread_on_me.jpg?itok=VGDhRguM" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>There was the <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/Revkin/status/181710454345834497">Tweet</a>, from Andy Revkin: “Scientists Call For Stronger Global Governance To Address Climate Change.” Revkin linked to a <a href="http://t.co/7n6nRw3S">Forbes story</a>, that, in turn, linked to a <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1306.summary">new paper in <em>Science</em></a> by the “Earth System Governance Project,” described as “the largest social science research network in the area of governance and global environmental change.”</p>
<p>So why, then, don’t these scientists seem to know much about the social science when it comes to communication?</p>
<p>If you are a <span class="caps">U.S.</span> conservative, then “global governance” is automatic fighting words. Conservatives have <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2011/12/20/cultural-vs-ideological-cognition-part-1.html">individualistic values</a>, as per Dan Kahan; they interpret the <a href="http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php">moral foundation of “liberty/oppression”</a>—as per <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307377903/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=chriscmooneyc-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0307377903">Jonathan Haidt</a>–as a cry to resist power grabs by big government, and even more, global government.</p>
<p>This is deep seated, emotional, and powerful. And scientists have just brazenly triggered it by talking about “global governance.” </p>
<p>Look: I’m no purist about communication. I know it is partly theory, and partly an art form. It requires creativity and humor as much as it requires listening to what science has to say about what persuades people (and what doesn’t).</p>
<p>But there are a few <em>obvious tripwires </em>that by now, people really should be aware of. And triggering the Tea Party’s “don’t tread on me” reflex surely ought to be one of them.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>The “Earth System Governance Project” is, admittedly, a global group of scholars, so perhaps some of them are not attuned to the nature of politics in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> But other members are indeed American. And all of them are working in a highly contested and politicized area, something that is rather hard to miss even in the ivory tower.</p>
<p>So if the problematic nature of their message did not occur to them, or to their editors and peer reviewers at <em>Science</em>, then this means the quest to improve science communication–based on science–still has a very long way to go.</p>
<p>To advance it, let me lay out one simple principle for contemplation: <em>Don’t trust your instincts in communication. They are very probably wrong.</em></p>
<p>In general, scientists, liberals, and university-based people share a set of assumptions. To be brief, these are the Enlightenment assumptions….lay the facts out there, they are accepted, the world gets better, we change and improve.</p>
<p>But these assumptions are not universal, and in assuming they are, we completely hobble our communications.</p>
<p>Starting from their liberal Enlightenment framework, members of the “Earth System Governance Project” naturally assume since climate change is real, and since global institutions have failed to address it, we need better working global institutions. The steps from problem to solution are, for them, perfectly obvious.</p>
<p>And that’s precisely the problem.</p>
<p>Here’s a simple trick that might help scientists in such a situation: <em>Try writing the Fox News headline for your paper.</em> In the present case, I think that says it all.</p>
<p>Look, I want better global governance as much as the next liberal—but I <em>know </em>that the to express oneself in this way is to trigger conservative ire. And that goes doubly or triply if you’re a scientist and you want to be seen as a nonpartisan expert who is fair and even-handed. The call for global governance will appear inherently political to conservatives; heck, I am willing to bet that in a controlled experiment, such a framing will also drive them to deny global warming even more strongly than they do normally.</p>
<p>So what should scientists do? First and most obviously, <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net">read the research</a>. And doing so leads to the conclusion that you can't just think about the science, or about the policy—you must also think about the cultural meaning and the system of <em>morality</em> you are conveying. </p>
<p>Second–because I know this objection is coming–this doesn't mean that you can't propose the ideas or solutions that you think are the correct ones. But it does mean you probably ought to do so in a context that also credits some solutions that we know appeal to conservatives, like nuclear power and various forms of geoengineering. (See Dan Kahan's take <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/3/18/two-proposals-from-scientists-on-how-to-save-the-world-which.html">here</a>.)</p>
<p>And yes, I know very well that that may feel uncomfortable. But I promise you this: It's no less uncomfortable than the “global governance” framing feels to conservatives.</p>
<p>Finally, three: Everybody's free to take this advice and leave it. But don't be surprised if your communications backfire, if you get labeled political, or if someone uses you to support the idea that there <a href="http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2557">really is a scientific conspiracy to sell us global warming when the real goal is socialist global government</a>. (Yup, it has <a href="http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2557">already happened</a>.) You've been warned.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5570">science communication</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7327">framing</a></div></div></div>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:43:26 +0000Chris Mooney6138 at http://www.desmogblog.comDon’t Blame the Victims: Why Public Outreach By Climate Scientists is More Vital Than Everhttp://www.desmogblog.com/don-t-blame-victims-why-public-outreach-climate-scientists-more-vital-ever
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/speakout.jpg?itok=1ayNCvii" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In the last few years—and especially in the wake of the ClimateGate pseudo-scandal—climate researchers have become much more politically engaged. They’ve sought to become better at communication, and to have a greater influence on public policy. They’ve tried to establish rapid response capabilities, and also, better ways of protecting themselves from political harassment and lawsuits.</p>
<p>This didn’t happen by accident. It happened because there has been a long term campaign to attack and discredit climate science, and obscure what we actually know. Ultimately, researchers decided that they couldn’t just be silent as their knowledge was distorted, or as their colleagues were attacked.</p>
<p>So what did they do? Just what Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan would have done—and in fact, did repeatedly on the public issues of their day. They spoke out.</p>
<p>There is <em>absolutely nothing wrong </em>with this. In fact, it is essential. Scientific knowledge is a powerful thing, which is precisely why it is of vital importance that it gets communicated, accurately, in such a way as to influence public policy. If that isn’t happening, then not only is it natural for scientists to step up—they have a moral obligation to do so, and to do so effectively.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>I say this, incidentally, because I was appalled by an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-climate-wars-radicalization-of-researchers-brings-risks/2012/02/24/gIQAcQWsrR_story.html">article in the <em>Washington Post</em> today</a>, which at least online was entitled “In climate wars, radicalization of researchers brings risks.” I know that reporters often don’t control their titles, so maybe the word “radicalization” was not Juliet Eilperin’s fault. But in the article itself, Eilperin also says that climate researchers have been “politicized,” which is also negative and judgmental, and misleading.</p>
<p>The thrust of the article is that the Peter Gleick-Heartland Institute affair is an indicator of growing scientist politicization around climate change. But just because one researcher (Gleick) did something that he now <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html">says he regrets</a>—soliciting documents under a false identity—does not mean that we get to tar climate researchers as radicals or political operatives.</p>
<p>Indeed, the quotation that opens the piece, from American Geophysical Union president Michael McPhaden, shows just how “radical” researchers are (not!):</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;"><span class="dquo">“</span>Scientists today, they don’t just want to talk about it. They want to do something about it,” he said in an interview. “We’re the trustees of information which, in many ways, is of critical benefit to society.”</p>
<p>Exactly right. How this earns labels like “radical” and “politicized” is beyond me. There’s really nothing else in the article that justifies it either.</p>
<p>Nowhere, meanwhile, does the article make an absolutely fundamental distinction: Trying to spread an accurate understanding of climate science is <em>not at all the same thing </em>as lobbying for a particular piece of legislation, or for a particular political party. Scientists are rallying behind knowledge—not a bill on the hill, and not a particular politician.</p>
<p>What is happening in this <em>Post</em> article, in the end, is victim blaming. Completely innocent scientists who tried to learn about the world and help humanity were attacked because their knowledge was threatening to some. And yeah, some of the scientists were shocked by these attacks. Some were appalled; a few became leaders and activists (like James Hansen); and overall, the scientific community was definitely <em>roused</em> to do something–and to speak out.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t make scientists radicals. It only makes them citizens. </p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/767">washington post</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/821">Heartland Institute</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5017">Peter Gleick</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5570">science communication</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8537">juliet eilperin</a></div></div></div>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:28:42 +0000Chris Mooney6105 at http://www.desmogblog.comThe Uneasy Relationship Between Explaining Science to Conservatives...and Explaining Conservatives Scientificallyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/uneasy-relationship-between-explaining-science-conservatives-and-explaining-conservatives-scientifically
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/democrat_and_republican_symbols_0.jpg?itok=yjZSZfkg" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Over the past year or more, I’ve profited from a series of conversations and exchanges with Yale’s <a href="http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/DKahan.htm">Dan Kahan</a>, the <span class="caps">NSF</span> supported researcher who has made great waves studying how our cultural values predispose us to discount certain risks (like, say, climate change). Kahan’s schematic for approaching this question—dividing us up into <a href="http://www.yalescientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/fulllengths-cultural-2.jpg">hierarchs versus egalitarians, and individualists versus communitarians</a>—is a very helpful one that gets to the root of all manner of dysfunctions and misadventures in the relationship between politics, the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> public, and science.</p>
<p>Kahan says that his goal is to create a “science of science communication”: In other words, understanding enough about what really makes people tick (including in politicized areas) so that we know how to present them with science in a way that does not lead to knee-jerk rejections of it. Thus, for instance, presenting conservatives with factual information about global warming <em>packaged </em>as evidence in favor of expanding nuclear power actually makes them less defensive, and more willing to accept what the science says—because now it has been framed in a way that fits their value systems.</p>
<p>This is a very worthy project—but it doesn’t only tell us how to communicate science to conservatives. It tells us something scientific about who conservatives <em>are</em>. They are people who are often motivated—instinctively, at a gut level–to support, default to, or justify hierarchical systems for organizing society: Systems in which people aren’t equal, whether along class, gender, or racial lines. And they are motivated to support or default to individualistic systems for organizing (or not organizing) society: People don’t get help from government. They’re on their own, to succeed or fail as they choose.</p>
<p>It is one thing to accurately and scientifically explain how these values motivate conservatives. And it is another to reflect on whether one considers these values to be the ones upon which a virtuous and just society really ought to be built.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>Kahan’s way of explaining conservatives, based on their moral values, is closely related to other approaches, like the well known one of University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Haidt does it a little differently, talking about the different “<a href="http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php">moral foundations</a>” of liberals and conservatives. But there’s a heck of a lot of overlap. For Haidt, liberals care about fairness or equality, and they care about protecting people from harm. This is roughly analogous to egalitarianism and communitarianism. Conservatives, however, have other “moral foundations”: They care about respect for authority (e.g., hierarchy). They care about loyalty to the group (or to put a more negative spin on it, tribalism). And they care about purity or sanctity and whether someone does something perceived to be, you know, disgusting (especially sexually).</p>
<p> Again, when one reflects on whether these values are actually, you know, <em>good ones</em>, I would have to answer “no.” I don’t think respecting authority is so great—authorities are too often naked emperors—and this is of course why I am an anti-authoritarian liberal. I definitely don’t like tribalism, though I do appreciate the power of loyalty in a foxhole or on a football team. And I don’t think the “yuck factor,” or someone’s personal sense of what is disgusting, is a good basis (standing on its own, anyway) for deciding how we ought to be governed.</p>
<p>The point is that it is one thing to understand how to reach conservatives—e.g., frame information in the context of these sorts of values—and it is another thing to <em>understand</em> conservatives, and to really think about what it means that human beings divide up, politically, based upon these kinds of differences.</p>
<p>And of course, Kahan’s and Haidt’s approaches are just two out of many scientific approaches for understanding the differences between what makes liberals, versus conservatives, tick. Other approaches have focused on left-right personality differences, on different <a href="http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/01/the-left-and-the-right-physiology-brain-structure-and-function-and-attentional-differences/">physiological responses to stimuli and patterns of attention</a>, on some <a href="http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/01/the-left-and-the-right-physiology-brain-structure-and-function-and-attentional-differences/">differences in brain structure and function</a>, and even, believe it or not, on <a href="http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/01/the-left-and-the-right-part-ii-eleven-genetic-studies/">genes</a>.</p>
<p>This stuff is, if anything, even more wildly controversial than Kahan’s or Haidt’s work. But it, too, is good science: peer reviewed, insightful, important.</p>
<p>I bring all of this up, by the way, because Kahan has just written me a “<a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/1/26/hey-chris-mooney.html">Hey, Chris Mooney</a>” open letter. He knows I have a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118094514/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=chriscmooneyc-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=217145&amp;creative=399373&amp;creativeASIN=1118094514">book coming out</a> on the science of liberals and conservatives, a science to which he himself has contributed, even if this is not his primary goal. He says he welcomes my project, but asks me to imagine a different one—he calls it the “Liberal Republic of Science” project–and whether it is worthy:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Imagine someone (someone very different from you; very different from me)– a conservative Republican, as it turns out–who says: “Science is so cool – it shows us the amazing things God has constructed in his cosmic workshop!”</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Forget what percentage of the people with his or her cultural outlooks (or ideology) feel the way that this particular individual does about science (likely it is not large; but likely the percentage of those with a very different outlook – more secular, egalitarian, liberal – who have this passionate curiosity to know how nature works is small too. Most of my friends don't–hey, to each his own, we Liberals say!).</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">My question is do you (&amp; not just you, Chris Mooney; <em>we</em>–people who share our <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2011/12/25/cultural-vs-ideological-cognition-part-3.html">cultural outlooks, worldview, “ideology”</a>) know how to talk to this person? Talk to him or her about <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/the-tragedy-of-the-risk-perception-commons-culture-conflict.html">climate change</a>, or about <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/who-fears-the-hpv-vaccine-who-doesnt-and-why-an-experimental.html">whether his daughter should get the <span class="caps">HPV</span> vaccine</a>? Or even about, say, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7281/full/463614a.html">how chlorophyll makes use of quantum mechanical dynamics to convert sunlight into energy</a>? I think what “God did in his/her workshop” <em>there</em> would blow this person's mind (blows mine).</p>
<p>I actually do know how to talk to this person about climate change—though I wouldn’t be the best person to do it, since I can’t walk the walk and wouldn’t sound at all authentic. But the answer is to talk about the biblical mandate to serve as stewards of the creation. And research like Kahan’s has been critical in helping us generally understand how to <em>frame </em>science for different audiences—for people like this hypothetical conservative.</p>
<p>Kahan goes on to ask:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">I look forward to reading <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/08/363268/the-republican-brain-science-mooney/?mobile=nc">The Republican Brain</a>.<br /><br />
But there's another project out there – let's call it the Liberal Republic of Science Project – that is concerned to figure out how to make both the wisdom and the wonder of science as available, understandable, and simply enjoyable to citizens of all cultural outlooks (or ideological “brain types”) as possible.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">The project isn't doing so well. It desperately needs the assistance of people who are really talented in communicating science to the public.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">I think it deserves that assistance. </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Wouldn't you agree?</p>
<p>Yes, I agree very strongly, though I don’t think the project is ailing as badly as Kahan suggests. If you look at now, versus five years ago, there is <em><a href="http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/01/science-communication-the-battle-has-turned-and-were-winning-it/">much more openness to the project</a></em> than there was before. Approaches that I got virulently attacked for advocating in 2007 and 2009—like “framing” scientific information and pushing scientists to engage in outreach, as I did in the book <em>Unscientific America</em>—now scarcely meet with a peep of protest within the scientific community.</p>
<p>So I actually think that ball—call it the “science communication” ball–has left the pitcher’s hand. People are out there trying to communicate science in all manner of sophisticated and increasingly audience sensitive ways (including <em>conservative</em> audience-sensitive ways). Kahan’s research is, I’d wager, having a profound influence on that enterprise.</p>
<p>I’m part of that enterprise, I devote myself to it every month, and I believe in it deeply.</p>
<p>But here’s the thing: I’ve also read my history of science. And it tells me that sometimes, when science comes along, it is fundamentally challenging to the most firmly held worldviews, and meets with adamant rejection—because people just can’t face the music.</p>
<p>This certainly describes global warming science today. It describes the science of evolution. And although we don’t really know yet, it may well describe the science of liberals and conservatives.</p>
<p>In other words, while you may well be able to use research like Kahan’s to make conservatives receptive to certain types of science, there may also be some aspects science that they are just bound to reject. And ultimately, there may be only so much you can do to blunt the force of such science through some type of frame game.</p>
<p>Science is, let us remember, one of the most destabilizing forces on the planet. It is relentless in its constant driving of change—change not only in how we live, but how we think. In this, it is a <em>liberal</em> force—always searching after the new and different. So sometimes, it can’t help but clash with <em>conservative</em> forces—striving to preserve and avert change.</p>
<p>So Hey Dan Kahan, here’s what I’ll say: Without your project we’d be much, much poorer.</p>
<p>But the fact is that when it comes to understanding our politics, and our politics of science, and our <em>science of politics, </em>we live in really….interesting times. Too interesting, I predict, for some people to handle—and too interesting for other people, including scientists, to resist.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5570">science communication</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6753">dan kahan</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7327">framing</a></div></div></div>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:23:41 +0000Chris Mooney6021 at http://www.desmogblog.comScience Communication: Training for the Futurehttp://www.desmogblog.com/science-communication-training-future
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Mississippi%20State_0.jpg?itok=mRleTItV" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Yesterday I arrived in Las Vegas, Nevada, for another installment of an enterprise to which I’ve been increasingly devoted over the last year: Training scientists in communication, public engagement, and media outreach. <a href="http://www.facebook.com/NSFmessengers">Working with the National Science Foundation</a>, but also sometimes on my own, I’ve now probably been involved in training over a thousand scientists in these, er, “arts.”</p>
<p>In this, I’m just one part of a much broader communication and outreach wave that is sweeping the science world. This wave, in my view, has built up for two related reasons: 1) ongoing frustration in the research community over the failure to get its knowledge “out there”—successfully disseminated—especially on controversial subjects like climate change and evolution; 2) the decline of science coverage itself in the traditional media, and the concomitant rise of the new media. This development is both exhilarating and also rather terrifying, because it increasingly places the scientist him- or herself in the position of serving as a direct-to-public communicator, rather than in the old role of communicating through an intermediary (the journalist).</p>
<p>My co-authored 2009 book <em>Unscientific America</em> noted these trends and called for greater outreach efforts—and now, I’m also heavily involved in trying to realize the vision. As a result, I think it’s worth laying out some conclusions I’ve drawn so far from the “sci comm” training enterprise, as well as to describe what appear to be the next steps. (This is also something I’m going to be talking about more at two conferences coming up: The <a href="https://www.acsmeetings.org/">Soil Science Society of America</a> annual meeting in San Antonio in October, and the <a href="http://sites.agu.org/fallmeeting/">Fall Meeting</a> of the American Geophysical Union this December in San Francisco.)</p>
<p>To me, the key tension at the center of this exercise is between “theory” and “practice.” And we have to ensure it’s a productive one.</p>
<!--break--><!--pagebreak-->
<p>Any good science communication training event, or curriculum, will include elements of both theory and practice. But there is vastly more theory out there than you can usually cover, and any training—especially if your time is limited to a few days, as ours are–must largely focus on the practical.</p>
<p>And yet we can never forget that theory must inform practice—indeed, theory could potentially significantly revise practice.</p>
<p>The central question thus becomes: As modules across the country and world develop to spread knowledge about the <em>practice </em>of science communication, at what point do we need to build in an entire “Level 102” that does a better job handling the theory? And indeed, while the “practice” is generally more stable, the theory itself is always growing and changing. That’s because scientific knowledge itself is increasingly rapidly about what we might call the psychological dynamics behind science communication–to the point where some researchers are proposing a “<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503">science of science communication</a>” that is definitely not a part of our current trainings.</p>
<p>How do we take this into account? That’s the question I want to address, but first, let’s say more about what these two elements, practice and theory, comprise.</p>
<p><strong>The Practice</strong>. This is what, at least <a href="http://www.facebook.com/NSFmessengers">with <span class="caps">NSF</span></a>, we spend most of our time on. It ranges from what I call “jargon-busting”—teaching scientists not to use words that only they understand—to emphasizing the core need to design a message in a strategic way, rather than a haphazard one, and how to do that. It also comprises the “rules of engagement” for interacting with those old media journalists still trolling around, and the “rules of creation” as scientists venture into direct communication with the public, often using new media: How not to induce “death by PowerPoint” in the audience, how to make a video, how to create a blog and Tweet, and so on.</p>
<p>Some of these elements of “practice” are unlikely to be changed by anything that happens in the realm of “theory.” For instance, I can’t see any possible world in which psychology is going to teach us that using jargon is actually a good way for scientists to reach non-scientists. Nor can I see any world in which having a disciplined message is not going to be better than an unorganized data dump.</p>
<p><strong>Theory</strong>. The “theory” of science communication encompasses a variety of different elements, and is interdisciplinary in nature. It includes “models” to describe the scientist-media-public interaction: What are the channels of communication, how is the message encoded, transmitted, decoded, and so on. It involves normative debates about what the goal of communicating science to the public actually is. It involves analyses of science communication efforts—what “frames” are used, and how do they influence media coverage and public opinion?</p>
<p>But I think that even in the realm of theory, this is rather standard stuff, and doesn’t much get at the really deep developments that are coming.</p>
<p>This sort of dawned on me last week, when I came across a <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/m805153k11856103/fulltext.html">paper in <em>Climatic Change </em></a>purporting to demonstrate, using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, that scientists have different personalities than members of the general public, and that this deep seated difference impairs communication. It has also been dawning on me as I survey all the growing research on motivated reasoning—how subconscious emotional impulses and moral values drive our interpretations of technical information, particularly in contested areas, and how opening people up to new knowledge often has far less to do with delivering the facts than getting their defenses down, through practices like, say, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/want-sway-climate-change-skeptics-ask-about-their-personal-strengths-and-show-pictures">self-affirmation</a>.</p>
<p>This is a young and burgeoning field, but already it is clear that psychology and cognitive neuroscience are going to tell us much more than we currently know about which types of messages actually reach people, which types of people actually make good messengers (to what types of people), and so on. Frankly, I see us heading into a world in which we will develop a “science” that is capable of explaining, at the level of the brain, why certain narratives or “frames” provoke emotional responses in audiences that not only engender more openness to information, but also motivate people to take actions. We’re talking about the “Yes, We Can” model of science communication.</p>
<p><strong>Integration</strong>. Some aspects of the “standard stuff” about science communication theory—and a few morsels of the less standard stuff—get into current science communication trainings. For instance: I now realize that when I do mock interviews with scientists in which I play Stephen Colbert, or when Alan Alda does <a href="http://worldsciencefestival.com/events/improvising_science">improv comedy trainings for scientists</a>, we’re essentially playing a game that turns on emotion and personality. We’re tossing Myers-Briggs “thinkers” into the deep water of “feeling” and showing that there is a different and more engaging form of communication than the wonk-technical. (I say this even though I have <a href="http://scienceprogress.org/2011/09/could-personality-differences-help-explain-the-realit-gap-on-climate-change">caveats</a> about the Myers-Briggs approach and the research in this area. But I am nevertheless pretty certain that we are going to find broad personality differences between the average scientist and the average member of the general public.)</p>
<p>So far, though, the more cutting edge theory is not influencing—that much—the science communication practice. At least not that I can see. We need to take that much farther. There ought to be a Science Communication 102 level curriculum to complement the practical, training-oriented approaches. I know some universities are moving in this direction—that should continue.</p>
<p>Ultimately, what does a “science of science communication” look like? Maybe, something like this.</p>
<p>Picture a targeted audience, whose broad values are known, being reached by a scientist-communicator who begins with an emotional appeal that resonates with those core values. The scientist-communicator makes sure that the audience feels—not thinks, but feels—agreement, affirmation, and shared ground with the speaker before delivering any information, especially controversial information. Then the presenter goes on to embed scientific information in a narrative that follows a dramatic structure and leads to an emotionally satisfying resolution. The audience then “responds”—heart and head, except of course, all of this is actually in the head–and the connection is perfect.</p>
<p>Some of the best science communicators already do precisely this, by instinct. But in the future, science itself will be able to tell us who they are, and why what they’re doing actually succeeds.</p>
<p>And ultimately, we’re going to have to teach science communication accordingly.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5570">science communication</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6329">motivated reasoning</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7327">framing</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7328">cognitive neuroscience</a></div></div></div>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:30:39 +0000Chris Mooney5748 at http://www.desmogblog.comCommunication Fail: Why the IPCC Must Do a Heck of a Lot Better in 2013http://www.desmogblog.com/communication-fail-why-ipcc-must-do-heck-lot-better-2013
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/IPCC-Logo_0.jpg?itok=ZEi4QTNG" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Regular readers know I’m pretty critical of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–particularly when it comes to how this expert body communicates climate science. Basically, my view is that any organization that holds a key climate meeting in Copenhagen in winter is pretty clueless about the politics and public perception of this issue. [<strong>See Correction Below.]</strong> But even worse is that <span class="caps">IPCC</span> has shown far too little investment in communication or public outreach (although lately that is <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/will-ipcc-be-ready-communicate-about-its-fifth-assessment-report">beginning to change</a>), and has handled crisis communication moments—like the <a href="http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/01/yet-another-climate-science-mess/">Himalayan glaciers flap</a>—terribly.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, before I get too many ticked off emails: I know the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> is the leading expert source for climate science assessments, and deservedly so. I know that the scientists who volunteer to work on its reports do a heroic job. I recognize and commend all of this. But it simply isn’t <em>enough </em>in this day and age—and it is in the communications sphere where the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>’s scientific excellence simply has not been matched.<!--break--></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/h17677450458k947/fulltext.pdf">new paper in the scientific literature</a> that studies major scientific assessment reports, and their public impact, supports this view. The study in <em>Climatic Change, </em>by Brenda Ekwurzel and Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists and James McCarthy of Harvard, shows that <span class="caps">IPCC</span>-related scandals have received a dramatic level of press attention, coming in second only to <span class="caps">IPCC</span> reports themselves in media attention. Furthermore, the paper also suggests that these reports are written in technical language that is likely misinterpreted by public audiences.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The new study shows that when <span class="caps">IPCC</span> releases one of its rare and treasured assessment reports, it does get more coverage than other assessment reports released by, say, the National Academy of Sciences or the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> government. That’s very appropriate: The <span class="caps">IPCC</span> is, after all, the gold standard and its reports are long awaited and endlessly cited.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But consider: The <span class="caps">IPCC</span> related “controversy” of late 2009 and early 2010 drew about 1/3 as much total coverage as the 2007 <span class="caps">IPCC</span> release of its Fourth Assessment Report, and <em>more </em>total coverage than the release of key assessment reports by the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> government and National Academy of Sciences. And I would argue that even this comparison is misleading. Anyone observing politics in this country would have to concede that the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> “scandals” have been far <em>more </em>influential than the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>’s science, at least over the past half decade.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The new study also looks at how the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> communicates its findings: i.e., in technical language that’s likely to be misunderstood. For instance:</p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">
<p class="MsoNormal">When presented with excerpted sentences from the <span class="caps">AR</span>4, survey respondents consistently underestimated the certainty implied by extremes, such as “<em>very likely</em>” (&gt;90% probability, according to the guidelines) and “<em>very unlikely</em>” (&lt;10%). Twenty-five per cent of respondents, for example, interpreted “<em>very likely</em>,” as in “<em>average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20<sup>th</sup> century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years</em>” (<span class="caps">IPCC</span> 2007), as meaning less than 70% probability…Thus, <span class="caps">IPCC</span> terminology intended to succinctly represent authors’ consensus on the range of probabilities associated with key findings may itself be a significant barrier to understanding for public and policymaker audiences.</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The <span class="caps">IPCC</span>’s “<em>likely/very likely</em>” language represents a group of scientists trying to use ordinary language to quantify uncertainty. The goal has always been to be as <em>accurate </em>as possible—but how these word choices strike people has been a far less prominent consideration. In other words, <span class="caps">IPCC</span> has been communicating <em>for </em>scientists, rather than <em>for </em>audiences.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A <a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/global-concern-for-climate-change-dips-amid-other-environmental-and-economic-concerns/">new report</a> shows that from 2007 to 2011, the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> public showed a 14 % <em>decline </em>in its concern about global warming. That’s a period that was kicked off by an <span class="caps">IPCC</span> report <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf">announcing</a> that “most” of the global warming we’ve seen is “very likely” caused by human activities.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which pretty much says it all.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Correction</strong>: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, not the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, organized the Copenhagen summit. My apology for this mistake.</p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5570">science communication</a></div></div></div>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:35:16 +0000Chris Mooney5694 at http://www.desmogblog.comGood Communication is Good Scientific Practicehttp://www.desmogblog.com/good-communication-good-scientific-practice
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/communication3.gif?itok=BtBqMRLZ" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It’s always helpful to know what those who disagree with you are saying, and why they do so. Let’s consider, then, a <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/more_climate_disruption_drivel.html">recent article</a> in the conservative <em>American Thinker </em>that espouses climate change denial—and that also, interestingly, whacks climate scientists for wanting to do a better job of explaining themselves to the public.</p>
<p>Anthony J. Sadar and Stanley J. Penkala write:</p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>The revelations of Climategate and ten years of stagnant global temperatures have produced a decline of public belief in human-induced climate collapse. But, rather than strengthening the foundations of climate science by increasing transparency in data analysis, releasing raw data for third party evaluation, and allowing their hypotheses to be debated in the literature, government-funded scientists instead have decided it’s best to just change their method of messaging. The latest tactic is for these man-made global-warming faithful to sharpen their communication skills and tighten their influence on the editorial boards of the environmental journals of record. The intent is to deflect or bury challenges to their climate-catastrophe canon, not defend their hypotheses.</span></span><span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">First of all, this is another marvelous example of how climate change denial is <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/once-and-all-climate-denial-not-postmodern">not postmodern</a>. <!--break-->Anyone familiar with the field of science studies will find this passage quite naive in its contention that mere transparency, on a highly politicized topic like this one, will somehow restore “objectivity” to the debate, so that the truth will finally become clear to all. Yeah, right. Whatever their faults, postmodernists know that people, including scientists, are a lot more subjective than that–and data do not speak for themselves, especially on so contentious and emotional a topic.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But I really want to tackle this point about communication, which is equally naive or worse–this contention that somehow, climate scientists are dirtying themselves because they now want to communicate to the public. Or that they’re just trying to become better spin-meisters.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>First, there is no doubt that there is a greatly growing interest in communication in the climate science field. Not surprisingly: Climate scientists overwhelmingly feel they’ve failed to reach the public and to explain their work to them, and polling data <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/us-public-global-warming-been-there-done-no-big-issue">strongly supports</a> this concern. So it’s very natural to shift one’s attention to communications in this context—and that has indeed happened.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>But climate science is hardly the only field in which it has occurred—and there’s nothing dishonest, wrong or otherwise lamentable about this development. Scientists today want to do a better job of communicating about an array of issues—not just the highly politicized ones, like climate change or evolution. Do we reproach them for that? Do we dislike what Carl Sagan did to bring science to the public, and what Neil deGrasse Tyson does today?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The truth is that what scientists are learning right now about communicating will actually help them to fulfill a major civic responsibility they have—especially if they receive public research funding. The whole point of the government’s funding of science is that the taxpayer supports work that’s expected to create a payoff for society in some way—not necessarily immediately, or in a predictable fashion, but certainly work that is relevant (or could be) to social problems, to generating new innovations, and so on.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In this context, it is essential for scientists to explain to citizens what it is that they’re doing with tax dollars: It’s part of the job description. It is even written into many government research grants—and it should be. It helps to promote accountability and responsiveness in a scientific community that, although often seemingly walled off in an “ivory tower,” in fact is intimately tied to a non-scientific public in myriad ways. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>So imagine that you’re a scientist, and you’re aware that it’s imperative to explain what you do, and why it matters, to non-scientists. Well, in order to do a good job at this task, there are some things you need to think about that you won’t necessarily learn in your scientific training. Let’s just use one very simple example.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>When it comes to scientific topics, citizens—and journalists, and policy-makers–want to know what the <em>bottom line </em>is, in plain language. They want to know why a topic matters, who it affects, what we can do about it. </span>And can you blame them for feeling this way? There is a lot out there to pay attention to. We’re all suffering from information overload, all the time. It is very hard for anything to get through, much less anything technical or difficult.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This fact has huge implications for how scientists communicate, because it suggests an approach that runs strongly contrary to their instincts in many cases. Scientists are often prone to explain themselves through long, stepwise, technical arguments, eventually leading to some type of heavily hedged conclusion. So they’ll start out communicating like this: “I study X. X is a particular type of Y, found in Z. Previous researchers studying X had postulated that A and B most centrally influence its formation and development, but my work suggests that to the contrary, C plays the dominant role…”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And so forth. But what non-scientist is going to follow all the steps, trying to keep up with all the jargon and alien terms (here denoted by letters), without even knowing where it is all going to lead and why it matters?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>That’s why scientists, in communicating, have to unlearn what they’ve learned in their training and put the conclusion first–followed by the details. For of course, once you</span> understand <em>why </em>the details matter, you are more likely to grow interested in them and want to learn more. Yet this is very different from scientific instinct in many cases. It’s not how scientists are trained to talk to their peers.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>This is just one small example of what scientists are learning about communication today, and it has absolutely nothing to do with misleading anyone–or with climate science in particular. Rather, it is about better <em>informing </em>those who pay for the research in the first place, and those who have a huge stake in it, <em>across</em> scientific disciplines–by making the results of science <em>relevant </em>and <em>resonant </em>to those who are not accustomed to the scientific way of speaking or doing things.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Moreover, this science communication trend is certain to continue–as it should. Naysayers aside, making science more relevant to the public that is affected by it is an idea that is here because the merits support it. Science matters; the public both needs and also deserves to know this; and scientists need to help them understand why. It’s that simple…and it also changes everything.</span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5570">science communication</a></div></div></div>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:12:58 +0000Chris Mooney5235 at http://www.desmogblog.comWhat’s Hot in Climate Science Today? Communicatinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/what%E2%80%99s-hot-climate-science-today-communicating
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/san-francisco.jpg?itok=-KU4Ki6Q" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p class="MsoNormal">San Francisco–Here at the 19,200 scientist <a href="http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm10/">American Geophysical Union fall meeting</a>, you can sample any aspect of Earth and planetary science that you like. The proceedings provide, among other things, a dream roster for Hollywood disaster movies in the making. You’ve got volcano experts, earthquake experts, hurricane experts, and on and on.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But you also have a new and different focus: Scientists out here, especially climate scientists but also those who study natural hazards and many other fields, are increasingly dedicated to figuring out how to reach non-scientists with what they know. They’ve learned the hard way, through events like “ClimateGate,” that it doesn’t just happen automatically. If anything, it un-happens.<!--break--></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">They’re growing convinced that if they don’t get themselves and their knowledge out there, someone else—like, say, <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/">Marc Morano</a>—will be conveying the message about climate science instead.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yesterday a session I participated in, called “<a href="http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm10/outreach/communications_workshops.php">Communicating Climate Science</a>,” was packed with over 200 people. We literally had to move a wall at the <a href="http://www.moscone.com/">Moscone Center</a> to fit everyone in the room safely and ensure it wasn’t a fire hazard. The other panelists were climate science communications trainer and consultant <a href="http://www.climatecommunication.org/">Susan Joy Hassol </a>and science communication practitioner (e.g., he’s a scientist who does it) <a href="http://www.richardsomerville.com/">Richard Somerville</a> of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I started out with an overview that surveyed scientific illiteracy in general and the public’s strange views of climate science in particular. It’s not just that only <a href="http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1276/science-survey">49 % of the public</a> thinks it’s warming out there due to human activities (vs 84 % of <span class="caps">U.S.</span> scientists). Moreover, large majorities <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/knowledge-of-climate-change">think “the hole in the ozone layer and aerosol spray cans contribute to global warming</a>.” On basic climate literacy (what’s the greenhouse effect, ocean acidification, etc) 40 percent of Americans get a C or D, and 52 percent <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/knowledge-of-climate-change">get an F</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But perhaps that’s partly understandable when you consider how often scientists <em>aren’t. </em>Hassol gave a memorable overview of the many wonk words that climate scientists use that backfire in communication with the public—or just fail completely to convey what scientists actually mean. “Anthropogenic,” for instance. How many times, she noted, have you heard someone try to sound smart and say “anthropomorphic” instead? And those are the ones that are <em>trying</em> to get it right.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Other words that backfire or have different meanings than scientists think? “Radiation.” “Errors.” “Models.” “Theory.” Oh, and especially “aerosols.” When people hear about aerosols, Hassol emphasized, they think of spray cans. What a perfect way of reinforcing the widespread misconception that climate change has something to do with the hole in the ozone layer.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hassol also covered another pet peeve: The standard <span class="caps">IPCC</span> usage of terms like “likely,” “very likely,” etc, to attribute degrees of certainty to various findings. I know scientists like being able to quantify how sure they are while still employing the English language—but is the public really cognizant of the underlying percentages? Hassol argued that when average folks hear such language, they often get the impression that scientists are less certain than they really are.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Somerville, meanwhile, took on the challenge of communicating when there’s a “dark side” trying to thwart every effort. He gave a roster of bogus denialist arguments, including the claim that there’s a conspiracy to suppress legitimate scientific dissent with respect to climate change science. As Somerville noted, climate skeptics like to paint themselves as Galileos struggling against the establishment, but in reality, “Historians of science will tell you that the odds of Galileos are extremely small.” (That was a laugh line.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The other panelists, and those in the room, seemed to concur with my suggestion that one of the problems here is what you might call asymmetric warfare. As Mike Mann has put it, debating climate skeptics is kind of like “<a href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/03/10/michael-mann-interview-denialists-are-waging-%E2%80%9Casymmetric-warfare%E2%80%9D-against-climate-science/">a battle between a marine and a cub scout</a>.” Scientists are constrained in communicating, in a way that many climate skeptics aren’t, by<em> </em>various professional and scholarly norms. So how can they be expected to respond in the media with one hand behind their backs, given the kinds of scurrilous claims often made against them?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s a difficult problem, but what’s clear is that there is going to be a new wave of attention paid to addressing it. That in itself will engender a trial and error process and, surely, some innovations. As I explained to the scientists assembled, communication isn’t rocket science—which is to say, it isn’t nearly so intellectually challenging as the work they already do. However, it is a bit like jujitsu—you need well honed instincts and fast reflexes. Those must be developed.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the end, the new focus on science communication may not yield dramatic changes to the nature of the public debate overnight. Not on an issue as nastily contested as climate change. Misinformation, once unleashed, won’t simply vanish. Polarization, though it may decrease, won’t quickly go away either.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the same time, though, scientists will be racking up small victories. They’ll be winning over audiences in public talks and local media interviews, even as they train their students to do likewise. They’ll be starting out blogs, like <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/">skepticalscience.com</a> (which was much praised yesterday), and initiatives like the <a href="http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/">Climate Science Rapid Response team.</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We don’t know precisely what it will all add up to, but will it be a net positive?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Very likely. </p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/american-geophysical-union">american geophysical union</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5473">Richard Somerville</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5570">science communication</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5571">susan joy hassol</a></div></div></div>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:22:17 +0000Chris Mooney4984 at http://www.desmogblog.com